Thanks Walker for the proposed KIP! This should definitely empower KStream users with better visibility.
Meanwhile I got a couple of questions/suggestions: 1. typo "repost/report" in the motivation section. 2. What offsets do we report when the task is under restoration or rebalancing? 3. IIUC, we should clearly state that our reported metrics are based off locally assigned tasks for each instance. 4. In the meantime, what’s our strategy to report tasks that are not local to the instance? Users would normally try to monitor all the possible tasks, and it’s unfortunate we couldn’t determine whether we have lost tasks. My brainstorming was whether it makes sense for the leader instance to report the task progress as -1 for all “supposed to be running” tasks, so that on the metrics collector side it could catch any missing tasks. 5. It seems not clear how users should use `isTaskIdling`. Why not report a map/set for idling tasks just as what we did for committed offsets? 6. Why do we use TopicPartition instead of TaskId as the key in the returned map? 7. Could we include some details in where we got the commit offsets for each task? Is it through consumer offset fetch, or the stream processing progress based on the records fetched? On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 3:00 PM Walker Carlson <wcarl...@confluent.io> wrote: > Hello all, > > I would like to start discussion on KIP-715. This kip aims to make it > easier to monitor Kafka Streams progress by exposing the committed offset > in a similar way as the consumer client does. > > Here is the KIP: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/aRRRCg > > Best, > Walker >
